District Judge Did Not Award Fees Under Federal Sanctioning Authority.
In Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., Case Nos. 09-16181/09-16607 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2011) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $300,000 fee award against a qui tam plaintiff who lost a contract claim and had a history of litigation abuse throughout the case. Though the court noted fees should not be used to chill these type of suits, the facts were peculiar enough to justify the award.
District Judge Wake’s decision in assessing fees against the claimant is worth reading. He carefully indicated his reasons for awarding fees under a contract fee-shifting provision (under Arizona law), but refused to award sanctions against the claimant or her attorneys under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (the federal sanctions statute). Among other things, District Judge Wake determined that it could not be used to sanction prior abusive conduct in state court proceeding (before removal) or as a vehicle for general post-trial retribution. See United States v. Genreal Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 3723087 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2009).